XN000022-1987-10-14 — Page 22

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1987

20

CONVICTED IF HE COULD AIR-CONDITIONER PROVE THAT HE COULD NOT REASONABLY HAVE PREVENTED THE FROM FALLING OR THAT HE HAD TAKEN REASONABLE MEASURES TO PREVENT AN OCCURRENCE."

"HOWEVER, THE CONTRACTOR WOULD NOT BE

SUCH

MR ASPREY SAID IT MIGHT NOT ALWAYS BE AN EASY MATTER TO

PART UNDER THE FIRST

OF SECTION WHO WAS LIABLE ABSOLUTE NATURE OF THE OFFENCE.

DEFINE

4B

DESPITE

THE

NO DIFFICULTY AROSE WHERE HAVING DROPPED AN AIR-CONDITIONER,

TO IDENTIFY, SIMPLE AIR-CONDITIONER TO FALL,

AND

A PERSON COULD BE IDENTIFIED

BUT IT WOULD NOT ALWAYS BE SO THAT A PROVE

PERSON HAD ALLOWED AN

IN ESPECIALLY

THE NOT UNCOMMON SITUATION

AS

WHEREBY PREMISES WERE LET AND SUB-LET.

PROVISION FOR

RESPONSIBLE, UNDER IT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH WHO WAS

ΤΟ MAINTAIN THE PART OF THE THE TERMS OF THE LEASE OR SUB-LEASE,

AND WHETHER THERE WAS BUILDING WHICH FAILED (IF THAT WAS THE CASE}

BY FIXTURES INSTALLED ANY SPECIFIC

MAINTENANCE

OF

TENANTS, MR ASPREY SAID.

WAS THE MOST HE SAID ALTHOUGH THE SUMMARY OFFENCES ORDINANCE

OTHER LIABILITY CRIMINAL

COULD OFFENCES

BE RELEVANT PROVISION ON

FALL OR BE APPLICABLE DEPENDING ON HOW THE AIR-CONDITIONER CAME TO DROPPED FROM A BUILDING.

"IT

IS

CONCEIVABLE A

TIAT

A COULD

PERSON BE

OF

WHO DROPPED AN MURDER OR

FROM

BUILDING

GUILTY AIR-CONDITIONER ATTEMPTED MURDER, IF THE REQUISITE INTENT COULD BE PROVED.

"IN LESS EXTREME CASES, MANSLAUGHTER, INFLICTING GRIEVOUS

BE RELEVANT,"

HE

BODILY HARM OR THE VARIOUS LEVELS OF ASSAULT COULD SAID.

IN

ASPREY

AS REGARD STATUTORY PROVISIONS RELATING TO CIVIL LIABILITY, SUCH CASES THE OCCUPIER'S LIABILITY ORDINANCE WAS RELEVANT, MR SAID.

A COMMON REASONABLY SAFE WERE INVITED

"UNDER THIS ORDINANCE, THE OCCUPIER OF PREMISES OWES DUTY OF CARE SUCH AS TO ENSURE THAT VISITORS WILL BE

THEY PURPOSES FOR WHICH IN USING THE PREMISES FOR THE OR PERMITTED BY THE OCCUPIER TO BE THERE.

FROM HIS PREMISES, AND IN A BREACH OF THE

FALLS "SO, WHERE AN AIR-CONDITIONER

CIRCUMSTANCES RESULTING INJURES A VISITOR IN COMMON DUTY OF CARE, THE OCCUPIER COULD BE HELD LIABLE.

"THE

LANDLORD

COULD

LIABLE

IF

A

HAS

OR DAMAGE,"

ALSO BE HELD

HE HAS THE AIR-CONDITIONER AND CONTRACTUAL RESPONSIBILITY TO MAINTAIN

THE AIR-CONDITIONER FAILED TO DO THIS, AS A RESULT OF WHICH FAILURE DROPS OR FALLS FROM HIS PREMISES, THEREBY CAUSING INJJURY HE SAID.

/MR ASPREY